If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Deciphering a sentence

The CMS says there is no grammatical or historical foundation for the proscription of a sentence beginning with a "conjunction."

I wrote them and mentioned that such sentences should be found in a compound sentence, and whether you agree or not, that is the grammatical foundation for the claim.

I have a record of our conversation which basically shows me nailing the poor lady. I say it like that only due to the avoidence of the issue, not because I was right or she was wrong. That aside, the fourth response I got was from a different person. He responded to my initial e-mail with something that I don't even understand, and it doesn't seem to be a complete thought. Could you tell me what this means?

"Dear Mr. Machiz,

Thank you for your question about The Chicago Manual of Style. It's really outside the purview of the Manual, however, whose "Grammar and Usage" chapter is intended to be a useful digest of frequently encountered problems for writers, editors, and publishers--not a technical linguistic treatise. Thank you for your interest in the University of Chicago Press's publishing program.

Re: Deciphering a sentence

The CMS says there is no grammatical or historical foundation for the proscription of a sentence beginning with a "conjunction."

It should say "coordinating conjuntion", but, other than that, it's correct.

I wrote them and mentioned that such sentences should be found in a compound sentence, and whether you agree or not, that is the grammatical foundation for the claim.

That argument is self-referential. It starts with an assumption and then use it to arrive at a conclusion.

I have a record of our conversation which basically shows me nailing the poor lady. I say it like that only due to the avoidence of the issue, not because I was right or she was wrong.

I can't make a judgment on that, but I have heard you say the same thing about other issues. In many cases, the issue wasn't being avoided at all.

That aside, the fourth response I got was from a different person. He responded to my initial e-mail with something that I don't even understand, and it doesn't seem to be a complete thought. Could you tell me what this means?

"Dear Mr. Machiz,

Thank you for your question about The Chicago Manual of Style. It's really outside the purview of the Manual, however, whose "Grammar and Usage" chapter is intended to be a useful digest of frequently encountered problems for writers, editors, and publishers--not a technical linguistic treatise. Thank you for your interest in the University of Chicago Press's publishing program.

Sincerely,

*&%#!@

It says that your question is outside the purview of the CMS, because it is a style manual, and not intended to be a grammar. :wink: